Lords Sitting of 18 May 1832

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS—EXPLANATIONS.
The Archbishop of Yorkwas anxious to say a few words upon some circumstances personal, to himself, connected with the proceedings on the Reform Bill. The violence and excitement which prevailed in the Debate last night (if debate it could be called) which followed the declaration of a noble Duke not now in the House—a violence and excitement which, during the forty years he had had the honour of
1044
a seat in that House, he had never before witnessed—and God forbid he should live to witness the same again—unnerved him to such a degree, that be really had not power to address their Lordships. In these times, when the conduct of public men was so unsparingly assailed—when they were industriously and mischievously subjected to the grossest misrepresentation and falsehood, he felt it necessary to say a few words in explanation of the view he had taken on the question, and the course he intended to adopt in the further proceedings upon it. When the former Reform Bill was before their Lordships, in the course of the last Session, he was necessarily prevented from attending by the interference of various duties which he had to discharge in Yorkshire at that particular time—duties which he ever had regarded as of paramount importance to every other duty which a Bishop might, in his legislative capacity, be called upon to perform; for when either the interests of religion or the rights of the clergy were affected, he felt himself bound to make them the immediate object of his consideration. But if he had happened to be present on that occasion, he certainly should have voted for the second reading of the Reform Bill, and simply on this principle, that it was a Bill applying directly to the constitution of the other House, and had been sent up to their Lordships by a large majority of that House, and that the preponderance of political opinion was greatly in its favour; and, moreover, that the object for which the Bill proposed to provide had received the approbation of the Crown. He should, then, have voted for the second reading of the Bill, upon the plain principle, that the provisions of any measure, so sent up and so advocated, were entitled to the fullest consideration of their Lordships. On the same ground, and for the same reasons, did he give his vote for the second reading of the Bill now on the Table, and this with the sincere view of supporting in the Committee the three great principles of the Bill—enfranchisement, disfranchisement, and an extension of the right of suffrage. Let it not be supposed that, by the order in which he expressed these principles, he was the less prepared to support disfranchisement in the fullest extent; but, in his view of the case, he had ever considered that the true and proper ground for disfranchise-

1045
ment was the necessity of enfranchisement. And as it was determined not to add to the number of the House of Commons, enfranchisement must necessarily be followed by a proportional amount of disfranchisement. Therefore was it that, when the Bill was in Committee, he had voted consistently with the opinions he entertained, not at all anticipating the effect to which a decision of the House in accordance with that vote had led. He trusted that the noble Earl would give him full credit for this declaration. As to the propriety of an extensive enfranchisement, the connection he had had for a period of twenty-four years with the great manufacturing towns in Yorkshire, afforded him abundant opportunity of being convinced of its expediency. He alluded to Leeds, Halifax, Huddersfield, and Bradford; all of which places, from their population, wealth, and intelligence, were fit to be intrusted with the elective franchise: and this, of which he so much approved, would be done by the Bill. He would only trouble their Lordships with a very few words more, and on a subject personal to himself, of which he was sure their Lordships would regret to hear. He had that morning received a letter from the Lord Mayor of York, announcing to him that he had felt it necessary to call in the aid of the military to preserve his (the Archbishop's) house and property at Bishopsthorpe, which had been assailed by a lawless mob assembled there on Wednesday evening, whose object was, undoubtedly, to effect the destruction of both. In consequence of the Lord Mayor's prompt exertions, little mischief had been committed; and, when he wrote at two o'clock in the morning, the military were stationed in the house and stables. Now, he believed there was no other cause for this attack but that he had been unfortunate enough, conscientiously to think that enfranchisement should precede disfranchisement. He thought it further necessary to state, that but for the circumstances to which he had already alluded, this declaration of his would have been made last night, and, consequently, before he had received the intelligence which reached him in that letter. He, therefore, trusted the House would not imagine he was influenced to make that declaration by what had taken place.
The Duke of Rutlandafter apologising
1046
for trespassing on their Lordships' time, said, that he would not now take the liberty of addressing them, if he did not think that, in the present posture of affairs, the individual opinions of every Peer ought to be, if possible, recorded, and sent down to the latest posterity, for good or evil, on the page of our country's history. He considered that the crisis had arrived when the boasted stability of our Constitution should rise superior to the influence of misguided policy and popular violence. Much of the future prosperity of the empire was identified with the circumstances of the present moment. He had attended most anxiously to the declarations made by his noble friends, the illustrious Duke and the noble and learned Baron, last night, and, after hearing them, his mind was deeply impressed with two considerations—unmeasureable gratitude to the gracious Prince now upon the Throne, who, in a moment of more trying difficulty than had, perhaps, ever yet been experienced by Sovereigns, had displayed a firmness and decision which proved him a worthy member of the illustrious race from which he sprung. There was wanting only the utterance of one monosyllable, and their Lordships' House had ceased to be a deliberative assembly. He, therefore, begged to express his humble gratitude to his Majesty, and to observe, that, at all events, let the consequences be what they might, the evening of his Majesty's days would be cheered by the proud recollection of having acted as he did. May the close of that illustrious Prince's life be like the evening of a Midsummer-day, that glides away in pleasantness and serenity. The next feeling he had entertained was a sense of the greatest admiration of the conduct of the noble Duke. He could not but feel the greatest admiration when he reflected on that noble Duke's conduct, and considered the obloquy to which he had been exposed by his patriotic attempt again to serve an ungrateful country. It would be the natural desire of the noble Duke, after all the time he had devoted to the service of his country, to seek repose, in the evening of his days, in a happy home; but the noble Duke saw the manner in which the Crown was assailed—he did not hesitate to forego his own repose, and brave even public obloquy, to preserve the independence of the Crown and of the Legislature. Under all those circumstances, he could not but feel the

1047
utmost admiration at the conduct of his noble and illustrious friend. He would now state, in the face of their Lordships and the country, what he had often and often stated in private, that there was no man in the kingdom whose opinions, if he had not an opinion of his own, he would so unhesitatingly adopt and engraft upon his mind as the opinions of his noble friend, whose late conduct had only confirmed his confidence, and strengthened his disposition to rely on his noble friend. On the subject of the Bill itself he wished to observe, that, although he opposed it, he did not mean to arraign the motives of those who introduced it. He would not deny that they might be honourable, pure, patriotic. It was not their motives, but their measure, he condemned. He could assure the House, that to a temperate and judicious measure of Reform he should not be opposed. He was opposed to the first Reform Bill, because its consequences, he conceived, would be mainly to affect the great institutions of the country. He had compared the present Bill with the former, and he saw no material alteration in it which should induce him to give his support to the one rather than to the other. He conceived that, by an extensive grant of political power to classes which had never before enjoyed it, and by depriving others of that power who had enjoyed it for centuries—by the destruction of vested rights, and the summoning of other rights arbitrarily into existence, a fatal change would be made in our constitutional policy, and consequences would ensue, the dread extent of which no human sagacity could foresee. He was far from denying to the people their just right of assembling together for the purpose of expressing their honest opinions on any point connected with the public good; and, moreover, he firmly believed there was not on the face of the globe a nation possessing more good sense and discrimination than the British nation; but he doubted whether the assemblies to which he alluded were capable of discussing, in a temperate and useful manner, those points to which they now addressed themselves, at a time when popular excitement prevailed, and when those classes were led astray by the acts of designing people, who had objects very different from the ostensible ones they set forth. He believed, that although the tone and temper in
1048
which the discussions were carried on in these assemblies were highly reprehensible, yet he considered that the same feverish agitation did not now exist throughout the country as at the period when the original Reform Bill was debated. The country was then in such a state—he meant in October—that the greatest misery which could happen to the country would have been the passing of such a measure. Certain was he that the future historian of our land might accurately describe the state of public feeling in our country in words such as those applied by a beautiful historian of old to the state of public feeling in Rome at the close of the first Jugurthine war. "Sed plebes, incredibile memoratu est, quantum intenta fuerit quantaque vi rogationern jusserit, decreverit, voluerit, magis odio nobilitatis cui mala illa parabantur, quam curâ reipublicæ—tanta lubido in partibus erat." It was some consolation that the measure was not passed at that period. Still he apprehended great danger from the discordant interests it would create, and which it would be so difficult to reconcile, and which, he feared, would lay the foundation of interminable discontent. He was ashamed to detain their Lordships so long, when he knew it was his duty to economise their time as much as possible. But before he resumed his seat, he was anxious to express the warmest admiration of the conduct of the House during the time this arduous subject had been before them. He had ever been proud that his lot had been so cast in life as to have given him the honour of sitting among their Lordships; and if such had been his opinion during his whole life, how much greater must it be now, when he had witnessed the conduct of that House under circumstances of such infinite embarrassment? It put him in mind of an anecdote in ancient history. When Saturnius, a Tribune of the Roman people, proposed a law for the division of lands taken from the Cimbri, he introduced a clause enacting that the Senate should swear to confirm whatever the people should decree. The law passed the Comitiæ by a large majority, and the Senate were called upon to swear to its observance. All consented except Metellus, who refused, stating that to do wrong was always base: to do right when there was no danger was common; but to do right, when it was attended with danger was deserving of all

1049
honour." He knew that he was addressing a Senate in which the character of Metellus was the leading feature. Their Lordships, in dealing with that momentous question, had kept the even tenour of their way, unmoved, upon the one hand, by fear of popular clamour, and unseduced, on the other hand by the meed of popular applause. The House had not been deluded by the hope of that giddy approbation which changed its objects before its acclamations had subsided into silence. It might spread its gaudy pinions, and shed down its meretricious light upon the tenants of the opposite benches; but the majority of the House were well content to hold their way undazzled by its specious splendor. Their Lordships had shown in their conduct that they were guided only by two considerations—the maintenance of our noble Constitution and the real interests of the country. So might always be that House disposed, was his fervent prayer. In conclusion he must express, however feebly he felt any such hope, that the Bill would realise the expectations of those who had brought it in, and that it might promote the good of the country.
The Earl of Harewood: My Lords, I fear I am about to be guilty of some indiscretion; but I am going to put a question to the noble Earl opposite, on the answer to which depends the course I shall pursue. My Lords, when we separated yesterday evening, it was understood, that another Ministry had not been formed. On that subject I should wish to address the House; but, before I proceed to do so, I will await the answer of the noble Earl to the question I am about to put. I do not ask it in any spirit of hostility, but merely for the purpose of satisfying myself and those who seem to be uninformed on the subject. I, therefore, ask the noble Earl, whether those negotiations have been brought to an end, and in what position he stands with regard to his Majesty's Administration?
Earl Greysaid, he was always as much as possible desirous, in answer to any proper question, to furnish as much information as was in his power, and more especially when a question was put in so courteous a manner. Certainly, if the noble Earl had not applied to him, he should have been prepared to state to their Lordships the result, he would not say of the negotiations, for he was not aware that he had ever used that word, but of the communi-
1050
cations which had taken place between his Majesty and himself since he had given up the Seals, and since the noble Duke had retired from the office he had felt it his duty to undertake. He had the satisfaction of informing the House, that those communications had been brought to this result—that, in consequence of his Majesty's desire, graciously expressed to him, and in consequence of his seeing now those grounds of confident expectation that enabled him to consider his pledge to the House, last night, of not continuing in the Administration without sufficient security for passing the Reform Bill, now on the Table, unimpaired in all its principles and all its essential provisions; and, in consequence of his now finding himself in a position, that such might be his confident anticipation; and in consequence of his having received his Majesty's commands, graciously expressed, his Majesty's present Ministers would continue in their places. Having now answered the question of the noble Earl, he would allude to nothing that was past. He felt, in common with the right reverend Prelate, deep regret and much distress at the tone of the debate last night; but he thought he could throw himself upon the House, and confidently say, that he had done nothing to provoke the asperity which was displayed. He would appeal to the House, whether he had not, however, last night, been exposed to a series of personal attacks, and to language which was not usual in their Lordships' House? And he could appeal to the House, whether, in the attempt to vindicate himself, he had been betrayed into anything which could be characterized by personal violence, or improper feeling? With the consciousness that he had not, he would let the subject drop; and he did trust, that the fever of feeling which now prevailed would subside into calmness. He felt the necessity that the measure should be conducted with calmness, to avoid furnishing fresh materials for irritation abroad; he felt, also, that that measure, by which he trusted the people would be restored to contentment, ought to be brought to a speedy conclusion. To these objects his efforts would be directed, with the same spirit and feeling as before; and he trusted he might look forward to a period, when this question would be settled, and all those hems and animosities would have subsided, and there would be a renewal of those means of prosperity

1051
which the country so abundantly possessed, and which only wanted political Reform to be developed. It was his intention—and he thought he might as well do it then, as there was no business before the House—he would accordingly move, that the Order for the Committee on the Reform Bill should be renewed for Monday next.
The Earl of Harewoodsaid, as he had informed their Lordships, what he had to say would depend on the answer of the noble Earl, and as he observed, by that answer, that the noble Earl and his colleagues were reinstated in office, he felt, that he was called upon to say a few words, declaratory of the course which it was proper for him individually to pursue. In so doing, he begged it to be understood, that he was acting altogether for himself, and without communion or connexion with any one else. The House had been given to understand, that the continuance in office of the noble Lord and his colleagues depended on the powers they should obtain to carry the Reform Bill, among which was that of the creation of Peers. In the situation in which public affairs then stood—in the situation in which that House particularly was placed—it became necessary, that he, as an individual Member of it, should look forward to see how to guide his conduct. He owned, that he deeply lamented the determination to which he believed Ministers would resort, to carry their measure of Reform, because, if the exercise of that alternative should take place, he saw, that there was an end to the independence of that House; to the independence, if not to the extinction of the Crown; and to the independence—he said it emphatically and sincerely—of the freedom of the subject. Such being the conviction of his mind, he should hesitate, by continuing his individual opposition to the Reform Bill, to add his mite to the necessity of overturning for ever the Constitution of the country. He had opposed the measure upon the second reading, because he considered it much too extensive for the necessity of the case. In Committee he had declared how far he should support it, and had pointed out where he should feel bound to oppose it. But, in consequence of the division which then took place, a different state of things ensued, and Ministers declared, that that House should not have the opportunity of amending that; or, if
1052
their policy were acted upon, any other measure that might be laid before it. In that condition were they now placed; and he maintained, that the act by which they were so placed was one of gross injustice and oppression towards that House. But what was he to do? How was he to meet the circumstances by which he was embarrassed? Was he, on his own individual behalf, to do that which would assist in bringing on the country a greater calamity? He thought, that the alterations which he wished to see introduced into the Bill were minor considerations, when compared with the mischief which must result from the means to which Ministers would resort to resist them. Upon that account, as he had already stated a few days since to a noble Earl, with whom he had some conversation upon the subject, he had determined to adopt what appeared to him to be the milder of the two alternatives which were left open to him, namely, that of withholding further opposition to the Bill. He preferred to do this rather than to incur what he regarded as a greater calamity—the infusion into that House of a large body of new Peers. Over that he had no control.
Earl Grey: I beg to say one word—[cries of "no, no."]
The Earl of Harewood: It was understood, from the noble Earl's statement, that he was to have the power of carrying the Bill. Well, then, if he (Lord Hare-wood) were to advert in any way to the circumstance of power, he should say that the power of which the noble Earl spoke, consisted in the creation of Peers. That being so, and meaning, as, under the circumstances of the case he certainly did mean, to withhold further opposition to the Bill, for fear of the greater calamity which he had mentioned, he preferred to get up in that House, and state openly to their Lordships what he intended to do, rather than to state it any where else, or not to state it at all. Having said this—having pointed out the line which he intended to pursue, he begged to add, that he only adopted that line by compulsion—by a compulsion operating so strongly upon him, that he looked upon it that this was the last time that he should have an opportunity of uttering one word in that House as an independent Member of it. Bidding farewell, then, to what he called the freedom of debate, he said, let those who brought this infliction upon

1053
them—he spoke this not in anger, but in sorrow—let those, he said, who brought this infliction upon the country, be responsible for their acts to the nation, when it shall have recovered its senses. But, for his own part, he would not, if he could help it, for the sake of the slight alterations which his opposition might effect in the Bill, longer impede the return of the country to its senses, which, he believed, would not be the case until the measure of Reform was carried. With this determination for the future he must defend his conduct for the past. When they were called upon to change the Constitution of the country, were they to be stigmatized as blameable because they hesitated or disapproved? He maintained, that the opponents of the measure of Reform had given nothing more than a fair and reasonable opposition to it; he would say more—he knew that the Bill had been brought up to that House by a majority of the House of Commons? What then? Did that imply—he knew it did technically, and by the rules of the House—but, he would ask, did it, in fact, imply that the House of Commons fully approved and acquiesced in the Bill? If it did, he could only say, that he had not communicated with a single individual who had assisted in passing it through the other House of Parliament, who, in his own private opinion, entirely approved of it. He would even go further, and, in spite of all the earnestness evinced by the noble Earl and his colleagues to carry this measure, he would ask, although he supposed he should receive no answer, if the subject of Reform were again to come fresh into their hands, they would propose such a Bill as that now upon the Table? If any answer were given to him, he knew it would be—"Yes;" but such an answer he was not bound to believe. He felt persuaded, that such a measure would not again be proposed; and, therefore, he was the more hurt at the means which were now resorted to for the purpose of carrying it. Were the measure one which was firmly, honestly, and conscientiously approved of by those who had supported it in the other House, and of those who proposed it in that House, he should not so much have minded the course which the noble Earl had expressed his determination to pursue; but when a new Constitution was put upon the country, which was considered by many, even of its supporters, to
1054
have weak places, he owned that he looked with trepidation and dismay to the manner in which it might work upon the interest and welfare of the nation. God grant that it might work well—that it might be good for the country—and that he and those who opposed it might be deceived in their anticipations of its results.
The Earl of Winchilseafelt, that the independence of their Lordships' House ceased from that night; because he was satisfied, that the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government would not have resumed the office which he then filled, except he had the power to control their Lordships' voice upon the great constitutional question which had lately been agitated—a question involving not only the interests of the people, but, he would maintain, the very existence of the cherished liberties of this country. If that House was no longer to be graced and characterized by the independence which had been its pride and boast, it ceased from that hour to be a deliberative body. The noble Earl who had just sat down had explained the course which he proposed to take in the further progress of the Reform Bill. He would, in that respect, follow the noble Earl's example. The course, then, that he should take would be this: to the last moment that the Bill was under their Lordships' consideration, to offer all the opposition in his power to those parts of it to which he objected. To many of the provisions of the Bill he was prepared to assent. From first to last he had been ready to support Reform to a much greater extent than many of the noble Lords by whom he was surrounded; but differing, as he did, upon some points of the Bill, which, if carried into effect, he conscientiously believed would tend to the subversion of the Constitution, by destroying the just balance between the three powers of the State—differing from the noble Lords opposite, as he did, upon those points, he should, throughout the further progress of the Bill, by every means in his power, seek to amend them. By the same rule, upon those points in which he agreed with the noble Lords opposite, he would give them his honest support. But he felt that he was no longer a member of an independent body; he felt that, when lie left the walls of that House, he should be an object of scorn; that the finger of scorn would be pointed at him as the member of a body

1055
which had lost its independence; as the member of a political body deprived of the power of legislation. He called God to witness, that since he had had the honour of a seat in that House, upon every great question he had never allowed party or factious feelings to bias his mind, but, as far as his judgment was correct, had endeavoured to promote that which he thought most conducive to the honour, happiness, and welfare of his country. It now seemed clear that the independence of that House was to be destroyed. It might be done in two ways; either by the withdrawing of noble Lords, as the noble Earl (Harewood) behind him proposed to do, by compulsion, or by the infusion of a great number of new Peers. Iii either way the independence of that House would be lost. It was vain to maintain that their Lordships' independence would not be destroyed by the creation of a number of Peers, which would make that House as close a borough as any of those decayed places which the noble Earl was going to destroy—which would make that House a packed Jury, to try questions of right and property deeply affecting the interests of the country. And when the delusion which had been kept up by a profligate and worthless Press had passed by, the people would see how far their interests and welfare had been compromised in the destruction of the independence of one of the branches of the Legislature. Before he sat down, he wished, in his character as an English citizen, proud still of his connexion with a country whose proudest boast had been the honest, open, ingenuous conduct which had placed it far above the level of any other nation upon earth, to call the noble Earl's attention to a subject which he conceived deeply concerned that noble Earl as the bead of his Majesty's Government. In that capacity, he conceived that the noble Earl was bound to stand forward to uphold the character of his Sovereign from the base, malignant, false, and treasonable aspersions which had been cast upon him, within the last few clays, by some of the leading journals of the metropolis. In the situation of difficulty in which the noble Earl had been placed during the preceding portion of the week, it was probable, that the aspersions to which he (Lord Winchilsea) alluded had escaped the noble Earl's observation. It was probable that the noble Earl had not had time to
1056
read the daily newspapers; but, now that the question of his remaining in office was settled—now that the noble Earl again appeared as the head of his Majesty's Government, he (Lord Winchilsea) called upon him, as an English citizen, to cast his eyes over those malignant, those false, those unjustifiable attacks, which had been levelled against our gracious Queen, who, by the virtues which adorned her character, had justly entitled herself to the esteem of every friend of virtue. He called upon the noble Earl to enforce the laws against the authors of those libels; and he begged to remind the noble Earl, that, having so called his attention to this subject, if he shrunk from the sacred duty which he owed to his Sovereign and to his country, he would, to a great degree, take the odium of those false and infamous attacks upon himself. The wrong was inflicted against one who deeply felt it, for a virtuous mind could feel the blasts of calumny, while one less sensitive, perhaps, might pass them by.
"Good name, in man or woman, dear my Lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls.
Who steals my purse, steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine; 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name,
Robs me of that, which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed."
The only ground of offence in that illustrious person had been, that she had shown herself the friend of virtue and morality. He felt convinced that no individual in the country had taken so little part—nay, who had kept so completely aloof from taking any part—upon the' great question which now agitated the public mind, as her Majesty had done. But the point of offence was, that she had refused to receive females of profligate character, and have about her persons of doubtful reputation. That was the sole cause of the attacks which had been made upon that illustrious individual. In addition to these observations, he had only to remark, that in the course which he had expressed his determination to pursue he was influenced by no party motive—he had had no consultation, no communication, direct or indirect, with any person, either within or without the walls of that House.
The Lord Chancellor: In consequence of the expressions of the noble Earl who has just sat down, which I am sure were dictated by the warmth of his feelings at

1057
the instant, I am tempted to trespass for a very few moments on your Lordships' time. Nothing can be more natural than for the noble Earl to make those remarks without considering the assembly to which he offers them, and the peculiar functions of your Lordships in respect of the subject matter of which he complains. He—as well as the noble Lord last night—called upon the Government which then was, or shortly would be, to institute prosecutions for certain libels, or supposed libels. I cautiously use the words supposed libels, and that because I, as well as the rest of your Lordships—but I, perhaps, more particularly, by the situation which I have the honour to hold in this House—may, in the event of that advice being complied with, have to sit in judgment, as Judges—criminal Judges—on the very question of whether these publications are libels or not? That, I apprehend, is sufficient at once to remind the noble Earl of the next consideration which I shall submit to him, and to your Lordships, that if there be any one place where, more than any other place, such appeals and calls for prosecutions are peculiarly inappropriate, it is the House in which I have the honour now to stand; because it is the Judges who, in the last resort, are to decide on the questions raised by such prosecutions, that are called upon to consider whether or not those prosecutions shall be instituted. I consider it as grossly contrary to the functions which your Lordships exercise as Judges, that the question shall here previously be mooted, whether any such offences as those of which the noble Earl has complained shall be made the subject of prosecutions or not? I may have taken a wrong view of my duty here, but that is the principle upon which, since I have had the honour to sit here, I have uniformly acted, and, until lam convinced I am wrong, I shall continue so to do. The noble Earl, no doubt, forgot the situation in which he was speaking at the moment that the expressions fell from him, and, therefore, I could not help trespassing thus much upon your Lordships' time, to remind him of his judicial character, and, consequently, of the inappropriateness of his remarks.
The Earl of Winchilsea: I cordially concur in the sentiment expressed by the noble and learned Lord that on any question likely to come before your Lordships in a judicial character, it would be impro-
1058
per that any prejudice should be excited by previous discussion. I hope that I should be the last to wish to pursue any course likely to create such a prejudice. But if I have read, and know what treason is, I say that this is a question that can never come before this House. If ever an individual was guilty of treason, and that of the basest character—of a character that ought to be punished by the strongest infliction of the law—I say it is the being who has put forth the publication to which I have alluded. It is a question which can never come before your Lordships.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Earl seems to have misunderstood me, and, therefore, I must beg to be permitted to say a word in explanation. Even if there were prosecutions instituted for high treason—not for seditious libels, which the publication which the noble Earl complains of can only be—because a publication cannot be treason, but only evidence of treason—but even supposing that prosecutions for high treason were to be instituted, those very prosecutions might still come before your Lordships by writ of error upon which your Lordships, as Judges in the last resort, would have to decide. What the noble Earl alludes to are seditious libels. I take it for granted that he means libellous publications. Now, it does happen that the question of libel, or not libel, may be so placed upon the record as to be brought before your Lordships in the last resort, when your Lordships would have to adjudicate the very question of whether the publication on which the party had been found guilty amounted to a libel or not. It is for a Jury in the first instance to say guilty or not guilty upon the fact of the publication, as well as upon the libellous tendency of the writing; but your Lordships may be called upon in the last resort to say whether the record be one upon which judgment can proceed, or not.
The Duke of Newcastlehad anticipated the announcement which had been made by the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government, from the altered demeanour of the persons who had assembled about the doors of the House. The tone of insult adopted by those persons towards the opponents of the Reform Bill seemed to have ceased. He was, therefore, prepared to hear of the noble Earl's reinstatement. As an individual, however, he (the Duke of Newcastle) did not feel

1059
more assured of his safety than he did before; and as he had suffered so much, both in person and property, he thought he had a pretty good right to appeal to their Lordships, and to ask whether the same system by which he had been injured was to be allowed to prevail throughout the whole country? In the circumstances in which they were then placed, it became necessary to come to some determination upon the matter which had been brought before the House. According to his idea, they were involving themselves in matters which were highly dangerous. He had observed that, from the beginning to the end of the discussions upon the Reform Bill, the King's name had been used to over-rule the decisions of that House. He must declare that such a use of the King's name was not to be tolerated, and he was surprised that the Ministers who sat in that House had tolerated it. Besides that, from first to last, it had been held out, that if this House would not give its assent to the provisions of the Bill, its independent voice should be overborne by the creation of a vast number of new Peers. Such a threat could not fail of being eminently repugnant to the feelings of every man who flattered himself that he belonged to a tree and independent body of legislators. To brine the matter to a point, he (the Duke of Newcastle) proposed to make borne motion upon the subject; and, if their Lordships would engage to support him, unfitted as he was for such an undertaking, he was still willing to impose it upon himself. If their Lordships would tolerate such a degree of thraldom as that which it was now proposed to subject them to, he must say they were not worthy of a seat in that House. If they would come forward as men and Englishmen to do their duty, for he (the Duke of Newcastle) said, that the King had no right to create Peers, and he called upon their Lordships to take steps to prevent such an act, which, if it were not prevented, would make them cease to be free and independent men; he called upon them, he said, to do their duty, and they might depend upon it, if they did so, the country would support them in it. He was convinced that there was not an honest man in the country who would not say that their Lordships were void of the spirit which ought to exist in the breast of every Englishman, and of English Peers particularly, if they did not exert themselves to prevent the execrable
1060
tyranny of allowing the King's Minister, on any occasion that he might think proper, to fetter the freedom of debate in their Lordships' House by the infusion of a fresh body of Peers. With their Lordships' permission, he should certainly take an opportunity of making a motion upon the subject.
Lord Wharncliffecertainly could not concur with the noble Duke who had just sat down in thinking that the King had not the power to make Peers for this or any other purpose. He apprehended that the King's prerogative upon that point was clear and indisputable. The only question was, whether the King's advisers were justified in the manner in which they would recommend him to exercise it. The noble Earl (Harewood) behind him had stated to the House the course that he intended to pursue. Before he (Lord Wharncliffe) decided upon a course, and before, as it appeared to him, any noble Peer could decide upon a course, it was necessary that he should have some further explanation from the noble Earl opposite, as to the situation in which that House was to be placed. Was he to understand that they were to have an increase of the House, or were their numbers to remain the same? Were their deliberations on the subject of Reform to be carried on under the threat and under the immediate pressure of a creation of Peers to carry the Bill? or upon what other ground did the noble Earl opposite found the expression that he made use of, viz. the confident expectation which he now had of carrying the Bill, unimpaired in principle and uninjured in all its essential provisions? Did the noble Earl found that confident expectation upon the belief that a certain number of Peers would absent themselves from the House, so as to enable him to carry the measure in any shape or form that be might think proper? Did the noble Earl found his expectation upon this, or did he intend to convert his expectation into reality by the creation of a sufficient number of Peers? He (Lord Wharncliffe) put these questions directly to the noble Earl, because he wished to know in what situation the House of Peers was to be placed. He should, therefore, return for a moment to his seat until the noble Earl had replied. He did not ask the question in a spirit of discourtesy; but as a Peer of Parliament, and, until that moment, an independent Member of it, he begged to learn of the noble Lord

1061
the precise situation in which he was then placed.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, that it was perfectly justifiable and proper in the noble Baron to ask for an explanation of anything that was stated in the House, but at the same time, he protested against that mode of questioning a Minister of the Crown, and a Privy Councillor, as to what he had or had not power to do. He did not understand on what ground it could be expected that a Minister should answer such questions, when in answering he might perhaps betray the counsels of his Sovereign, which he was bound to keep secret. They had heard last night explanations given of what passed between his Majesty and his Privy Councillors, without any intimation that his Majesty's permission to give such explanations had been asked for and obtained. He had heard it stated as a matter of doubt, whether Privy Councillors were justified in exposing what had passed confidentially between themselves and his Majesty, even when they had his Majesty's permission to explain, since they were bound by oath to keep his Majesty's counsel. But certainly he had never heard that they were at liberty to explain without having obtained his Majesty's permission. But what did the noble Baron call upon the noble Earl at the head of the Administration to say? And what was the reason assigned by the noble Baron for putting the question? Only to know on what footing he himself and the House stood? Why, the noble Baron stood exactly on the same footing as they all stood, and it was for him to exercise his own discretion and judgment as to what he should do, without having his opinions varied, or altered, or influenced by the consideration of whether new Peers were to be created, or any thing else was to be done. There was no ground whatever for putting the question. The noble Baron, and those who thought with him, would act as they pleased. Some of them said that, they acted by compulsion. He really did not know what that compulsion was, or how their independence had been in the least infringed. They said, that their independence would be infringed by the creation of Peers. By the letter, as well as by the spirit of the Constitution, the King had the right to create Peers whenever he, acting on the responsibility of his Ministers, thought that the interests of the country required it, and, if so, he
1062
would ask whether this House had not always acted under the same compulsion as it had acted under during the last twenty days? If the creation of Peers was a breach of the law and the Constitution, it was a breach that had existed for a very long period. Where was the difference, in point of principle, between creating seventy Peers for a particular purpose, and creating one at one time and another at another, with a view of supporting a particular interest? The Crown had equally the power to create Peers in one way as the other, and the Ministers were bound to advise his Majesty to create Peers, if they thought that the interests of the country required that this should be done. They acted on their responsibility, and if they did any thing wrong or improper, they were liable to be impeached in that House, where their Lordships would sit as judges.
The Earl of Carnarvon: That was, they were to be judged by their own nominees.
The Earl of Radnordid not know what the noble Earl meant by nominees, or what right he had to call any noble Lords in that House, or that might be introduced into that House, nominees of the present Ministers, any more than nominees of any other Ministers. The noble Earl had, on one occasion, talked of noble Lords being driven by Ministers, as slaves by the whip of the driver; and now their Lordships were called nominees. Why, then, when the noble Earl's father was created a Peer for some purpose, what was he but a ministerial nominee? no matter whether one was created, or whether two, or twenty-two were created, the principle was the same. Suppose that some great public measure should be obstructed by the obstinacy of one Peer, and that the obstacle was removed by the creation of two Peers, the principle was the same as if the Crown had created twenty Peers; but the noble Lords opposite sometimes abandoned the ground of principle, and talked of swamping that House: he did not know what they meant by "swamping:" how could it be called "swamping" the House, when the Crown only exercised its undoubted and ordinary prerogative? But the real truth was, he was afraid, that the principle their Lordships acted upon was not the interests of the country, but the preservation of themselves as an exclusive order. Their consideration was not the welfare of the people: their object was not, by preventing the

1063
creation of Peers, to preserve their own independence—for, after the creation of new Peers, they would be as independent as before—but they wished to prevent the creation of new Peers to preserve their own order as exclusive and unchecked. The Ministers, however, were bound not to act on that principle; on the contrary, it was their duty to advise the Crown to create new Peers, provided they thought the interests of the country required it. It was a regard to the interests of their own exclusive order that made noble Lords stand between the Crown and the country upon the great measure now depending in Parliament. He thought that the great mass of the nation was right in the opinions which they had formed on that great measure, and that the confusion and obstruction of business which had prevailed such a long time was entirely owing to the noble Lords who had opposed its progress. It was the duty of Ministers to create new Peers if the measure could not be carried otherwise, and he hoped and trusted that Ministers would do their duty, and he had no doubt but that the best consequences would follow.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, as the noble Earl who had just sat down had interfered between the noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey) and himself, he wished to know whether he was to take the speech of that noble Earl (Radnor) as an answer to the questions he had felt it his duty to put?
Earl Greydid not feel himself called upon to answer the questions which had been put to him by the noble Baron: he had already stated, that he continued to hold office under the confident expectation that the Bill would be carried successfully through its future stages in that House. The noble Baron had no right to put any further questions, and he would be bound only by what he himself had stated.
Lord Wharncliffewas quite aware that the noble Earl was not accountable for what others might say; but with reference to the other noble Earl (the Earl of Radnor) he must say, that of all the speeches he had ever heard, his was the most extraordinary. He had long known the noble Earl in his political life, and had long admired his ingenuity and tact in debate; but on this occasion, if he had been asked to point out any one more unlikely than another to have made such a speech, he should have named the noble Earl. That noble Earl had always acted a most independent part, and
1064
he was quite sure that he would not come to that House to hear the mockery of free debate if a creation of Peers should take place. That noble Earl had said, that he (Lord Wharncliffe), and other noble Lords on that side of the House, did not oppose the measure for the sake of the well-being of the country, but because they wished to preserve all the advantages of their exclusive order. Now, he would ask, was there then no use in the House of Lords? Was it for their own exclusive sakes they sat in deliberation in that House? Or was it not by the grace of their Sovereign they were placed there, to have a free voice in all the national deliberations? If that House was not formed for the sake of the country—if it had not been framed with a view to deliberate for the good of the country—then he would say, that the House of Lords was useless, that it was at an end—and that the sooner the House of Commons took upon themselves the functions of their Lordships' House also, the better. Could any man doubt, when he talked of revolution, that it had virtually taken place within the last few days? This was a question affecting all parties of the State, affecting every one of their Lordships in their individual capacity, and the House of Lords in its collective capacity. What was the fact? After agreeing to the second reading of the Reform Bill upon going into Committee, and upon an Amendment being carried in that Committee, the Ministers had tendered advice to the Sovereign, requesting him to create Peers, with a view to overpower the votes of their Lordships on that side of the House. The Sovereign had refused that advice. The Ministry, in consequence of this refusal, found them selves placed in a harassing situation. But he would ask any man, whether this precise Bill must not be said to be carried by the House of Commons in its present state, against the opinion of the House of Lords, and, as he might infer from what had passed, against the opinion of the Crown? Let not noble Lords deceive themselves. The power of the State was now in the House of Commons, and their Lordships must see that, if they did not pass the Bill of the House of Commons, their votes were to be overpowered by a creation of Peers. He would say, that the House of Lords was no longer free, and that it remained to be seen how long the monarchy itself would exist. In spite of all the falsehoods and calumnies

1065
which had gone forth, he maintained that, neither on his own part, nor on the part of any noble Lord near him, had there been any attempt made, or any desire shown to get rid of the Bill. They might have been mistaken in the course which they had pursued on a late occasion. He freely confessed he considered it a great mistake in those who were willing to proceed to the consideration of the Reform Bill. Noble Peers, however, were now placed in a different position from that in which they stood on the second reading; and the principle of Reform having been entertained, it was surely in their power to amend the Bill, reserving to themselves the right to vote against the details of the measure in Committee: then why, he would ask, had not an opportunity been afforded to those noble Lords who did not mean to oppose any of the essential points of the Bill, to propose their amendments? But no, said the noble Earl, you have said, let us have the disfranchisement clause postponed till we have considered the enfranchisement clause. Now, he thought, and confessed it, that the noble Earl's view of the case was, in some respects, right, and he had always felt, that the motion made on a previous evening was one which was likely to put both sides of the House in a difficult position, and he had resisted the bringing forward that motion as far as he could in deference to those with whom he was bound to act. The question, however, having been introduced, the noble Earl opposite maintained that it touched the principles of the Bill, and, therefore, he went to his Majesty, advising him to make a sufficient number of Peers to enable the noble Earl to effect the passing of the Bill. He must deny, however, that this motion touched the principle of the Bill, and in so saying he spoke not only his own opinion, but that of many other Lords; and he trusted noble Lords opposite him would excuse him when he declared, that they themselves had afforded him the strongest arguments which could be given in favour of the course which had been pursued. Had it been sought, in the first place, to reduce the disfranchising clause materially, the noble Earl would, in such a case, have had a right to complain: but not so when the proposition made was merely that the first clause be deferred. He would not repeat what had already been said by noble Lords behind him as to the question having been treated in a different manner in the
1066
other House of Parliament, and he would admit that this was not the time to argue the merits of the measure generally, or in detail; but as they were now threatened with something, in consequence of the votes which they had given on the occasion to which he had referred, he was anxious to know what crime they had committed in so doing; and, until he did know this, the noble Earl must pardon him when he said, that the agitation of the country for the last four days was the work of the noble Earl, and was caused wantonly and unnecessarily. As, however, the noble Earl did not seem to wish to give an answer to the question which had been put, he would presume to say something else, and would observe that, for his own part, he could not come to any conclusion as to what might be his own conduct under existing circumstances. He must know, first, what was to be the real position in which the House was to be placed, before he took that line which he might think it his duty to pursue. He did not think that noble Lords opposite had a right to call upon them to declare what their conduct would be on that side of the House, when the noble Earl had merely declared his "confident expectation that the Bill would be completely successful in its future stages." Begging pardon of their Lordships for his having run the risk of tiring them, he would only then add, that at any time when the noble Earl might think fit, he should be glad to receive some further information from him, but, in the meantime, he must declare, that he could not give any pledge as to his future conduct while he remained in ignorance of what might be the course intended to be pursued by the noble Earl.
The Earl of Carnarvonsaid, he rose to make what was, perhaps, a vain effort, to obtain some information from the noble Earl as to what was to be the situation in which the House was to be placed on Monday next. In doing so he did not mean to ask him to render any information which could be considered as inconsistent with his duty, or with his oath as a Privy Councillor. He wished to know and he considered he had a right to put the question—whether it was the intention of the noble Earl, after the declaration which had been made by the noble Duke (a declaration which he would say noble Lords opposite had not treated in the most courteous manner), in going into Committee, to preclude noble Lords from

1067
the exercise of that privilege which had never been refused till then, namely, the privilege of endeavouring to correct the details of that measure, without invading the essential parts of the Bill, with a view to make it more palatable to all classes of his Majesty's subjects? Conciliation, he and the rest of the noble Lords on that side of the House had tendered? [hear]. Noble Lords opposite cheered. He knew that by the word "conciliation" was conveyed, in their interpretation of the word, passive obedience. The noble Earl had once professed the real Whig principles, but the principles which the noble Earl had since substituted for them were such as he never could adopt. The time had been when, if the noble Earl had used towards that House such language as he had lately applied to them, he would have been called indignantly to order, for no real Whig Peers would have endured it. The time had been when it would have been impossible to have believed that, upon a question in a Committee of that House, such a course would have been pursued as that of the noble Earl. But here he touched upon an unfortunate subject. The Minister of the Crown to whom he alluded, still existed to witness the destruction of that Constitution of which he had formerly been one of the greatest champions. If, indeed, instead of the unheeded voice which then addressed their Lordships, the voice of a Grenville could have been raised in that House, the noble Earl would have stood rebuked and ashamed. But the question which he was desirous of putting to the noble Earl was, whether it was the noble Earl's intention to permit the House to go through the Committee temperately and calmly? For he could assure the noble Earl that, as far as he himself, and the other noble Lords who sat on the same side of the House, were concerned, all he and they wished for was, that the amendments which they had to propose might be properly discussed, and adopted, if they were thought to be improvements in the Bill. He wished to know whether it was intended to propose to his Majesty to agree to such a creation of Peers as should deprive the House of Lords of the power of coming to any independent conclusion; or whether, the noble Earl having ascertained what were the intentions of noble Lords, such proceeding would be waived? And he begged to assure the noble Earl, that while the Peers
1068
were the last men to submit to dictation, they were equally ready, on the other hand, to make every proper concession that might lead to conciliation. He begged to say, that the intention of the noble Lords on his side of the House was, not to destroy the Bill, but to endeavour to make such amendments as the noble Lords opposite might with honour accept, and such as every Reformer should not be dissatisfied with. He wished no further pledge from the noble Earl as to what he might think it proper to do; but he was desirous that, if the Committee were to pass the Bill, it should go out of that House in a manner which was fit to make it the law of the land. In short, he wished distinctly to know, whether or not the House would be permitted to proceed with the Bill uninterfered with by the exercise of the authority of the Crown in the manner which had been suggested. Having given a pledge on the part not only of himself, but also on the part, of every noble Lord on that side of the House, that the deliberations on the measure should be conducted in a spirit of conciliation and calmness, he would only add, that, should the noble Earl not condescend to give him an answer, their Lordships would, perhaps, allow him to say a few words more.
Earl Grey, in rising, said, he was quite sure that the whole House must be perfectly persuaded, that nothing could be so mild, so conciliatory, or so calm as the conduct which the noble Earl had evinced throughout the discussions on this question; conduct which the noble Earl would lead the House to suppose that he (Earl Grey) had throughout avoided. He did not mean, however, either to imitate the noble Earl's conduct or the tone of his speech on this occasion. With reference to the question of the noble Earl, as to whether it was his (Earl Grey's) intention to allow the House to proceed temperately and calmly in Committee, he thought he might with more propriety put that question to the noble Earl opposite, because he felt satisfied that the matter depended chiefly on the spirit with which the noble Earl opposite and his friends went into that Committee. He was not aware of any occasion upon which he had departed from that conduct which was due to the House. "With respect to the other question," said the noble Earl, "it is one which the noble Earl opposite has no right to put, and which I certainly will not answer."
The Earl of Carnarvonagain rose, and said, that the refusal of the noble Earl to answer might arise from contempt towards him; if so, he was at a loss to determine whether he should esteem it as a compliment, or otherwise. In allusion to what had fallen from the noble Earl, he challenged the noble Earl to state, that one intemperate word had passed his lips during a six weeks' discussion on this subject. His questions remained unanswered, for when the noble Earl said, that whether their Lordships should proceed with temper to the consideration of the Bill in Committee or not, depended upon him (the Earl of Carnarvon), that was no answer to the question which had been put to the noble Earl. The question which had been put was, whether their Lordships would be permitted to proceed with the Bill, without the interference of the noble Earl, and without the exercise of the royal authority, by which the exertions of their Lordships to improve the measure would be rendered abortive, and whether that threat was to be carried into effect after their Lordships' labours in Committee were completed. Temper and conciliation had been offered to the noble Earl, but he, in form calm, though not in substance, never had held out a hand in return—nay, he would not submit to the least alteration in the measure, not even to the amount of a vulgar fraction. Warm, certainly, he should be, and loud also, while he could raise his voice against this attempt made to destroy their Lordships' authority, and forcibly to put down the independence of Parliament. He entreated the noble Earl, for the sake of himself, and for the sake of their Lordships, to answer the question which he had put, for he, (the Earl of Carnarvon) for one would never sit in that House in such a kind of mock debate, or to bandy arguments with the fifty or sixty liveried lacquies of the noble Earl. The language he was now expressing was the expiring language of British honour in this country, He was told by the noble Earl, that he should consider in a calm, and, what the noble Earl would designate a conciliatory manner, that which he must contemplate as the future degradation of that House. Now he should hold himself unworthy of a seat in that House if he did not express the warm and indignant feelings which he entertained in considering such a subject as this. The noble Earl opposite might
1070
talk of those gentlemen which he intended to introduce into that House. Gentlemen! Perhaps he was not justified as yet in giving them that name. Probably the bellman had not as yet gone round to summon to the peerage the first fifty or sixty persons of the age of twenty-one and upwards, who would condescend to accept of such a dubious honour; their patents, at all events, would be different from the patents of all former Peers. His father had received his patent for no unworthy act; he received it on account of his conduct in resisting mob dictation in the time of Lord George Gordon's riots. He was quite sure that his father would never have received a patent on such grounds at the present period. The peerage had not been conferred on his father on a pledge from him that he would assist in drowning the independent voice of that House. The noble Earl alluded to the possibility of a collision between the two Houses of Parliament. Now no collision existed between the two Houses at present, and he was certain, that if that House were left to is own will, no collision between the two Houses would be produced by the Amendments which that House might make in the Bill. He held his seat in that House on account of no act of oppression towards that House, nor on account of any act that tended to its degradation and destruction. It was to him a matter of indifference whether that House died by an act of suicide or by one of the foulest assassination. But he had one request to make of the noble Earl, the last that he should ever prefer to him, and it was this—that the noble Earl, before he did that which would effectually swamp that House, would bring in a bill—and he made this an earnest request, to deprive him (the Earl of Carnarvon) of the degradation of belonging to such a House, or of sitting in company with those who would permit themselves to be made Peers to serve the temporary purposes of that noble Earl. He further wished that the noble Earl would introduce a clause into that bill to restore him to those privileges which he believed he had never done any thing to forfeit—the privileges of an English commoner—privileges of which he should be always proud, and which, together with the privileges of a British Statesman, he trusted he should, even after the passing of this measure, he allowed to exercise. He hoped the noble Earl would grant a request which he now

1071
preferred to him in perfect seriousness. He meant to petition the noble Earl and the House to that effect. He was sure that it would not be long before the people of this country would be roused from that state of intoxication into which they had been plunged by certain persons, for reasons of their own, and before they would learn to distinguish their real friends from their treacherous oppressors.
The Bishop of Bristolwished to offer a very few observations to their Lordships on this occasion. He considered that it would be a most unconstitutional exercise of the royal prerogative to create a number of Peers in order to swamp the independence of that House. He trusted that the noble Lords on the other side of the House would not withdraw from it during the discussions in the Committee on the Bill, but that they would attend and do their duty, by endeavouring to amend the Bill, if they could; and if they should thus succeed in bringing it to such a shape that it would be more serviceable and more palatable to the country, they would effect great good. From the representations which he had that day received from Bristol and the neighbouring country he could state, that a large portion of the people there were inimical to the extent of the present Bill.
Motion for going into Committee on Monday next, agreed to.